The BCCI has ‘snapped its ties’ with event management group IMG. The franchises are concerned that professionalism will be the first casualty in subsequent editions of the League. And we media types are happy something has come along to provide interest — and colorful copy — just when everyone was getting bored with doing daily stories on how well the camp to prepare the Indian team for the tri-series in Sri Lanka starting September 8 was going.
The Times had a blow by blow account, derived from the letter BCCI Secretary N Srinivasan wrote to IMG:
The letter (a copy of which is in possession of TOI), says, ‘‘Your services were utilized for the first year of IPL (April/May 2008) for which an amount of Rs 42.92 crore was paid to you. The contract was negotiated between the BCCI secretary N Srinivasan and Andrew Wildblood. When the said terms were placed before the working committee of the Board for approval, the same were not approved. However, during the pendency of the negotiations, your services were utilized for the season 2009 during April/May 2009 for the IPL event which was shifted to South Africa.
“However, the working committee of the Board thought that the amount which was asked by the IMG was disproportionate to the services rendered and therefore again the negotiations took place between the president and secretary of BCCI and Andrew Wildblood in London in June 2009. You were asked to submit a fresh proposal before the next working committee meeting of the Board which you failed to furnish. Therefore, please note that the BCCI has taken a decision not to use IMG’s services any more for the Indian Premier League tournament.’’
In other words Srinivasan, himself a franchise-owner and an industrialist who, in his other life, routinely handles all manner of contracts, unilaterally negotiated a contract. The ‘working committee’ took an awful long time to work on it and figure out the board was paying too much. While the ‘working committee’ was working on this, a second edition of the IPL was completed, still per the terms of the original contract the ‘working committee’ had found unacceptable.
Question: Why is N Srinivasan not the one who is being sacked, for incompetence that according to the board has resulted in losses?